Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert

Abstract

Extensive controversy over the appropriate application of expert knowledge regarding issues of eyewitness accuracy led to a conference and a special issue of taw and Human Behavior in 1986. Arguments were presented both in support of and against the eyewitness researcher as expert testifier. The current research explored the views of the general public (N = 50), defense attorneys (N = 14), and prosecutors (N = 10) with regard to the use of eyewitness expertise in each of four roles (court‐appointed expert, consultant, researcher, expert tesdfier for the defense). Extensive differences of opinion were found across both samples and expert roles. In general, prosecutors held significantly more negative views of the usefulness of expert witnesses for the defense than did the public or defense attorneys. The role of court‐appointed expert was viewed positively by all three groups and may present a useful alternative to the battles of experts that may result from current practices.

What US prosecutors and defence attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony

“…Defence attorneys may have answered more questions correctly than the prosecutors due to their greater scepticism of eyewitness testimony rather than because of their greater knowledge (see also Lindsay et al, 1990). We investigated this hypothesis in two ways.…”

“…Either they assessed prosecutors' knowledge and beliefs about only a few eyewitness factors (Brigham & Wolfskeil, 1983), or did not specify the eyewitness factors used to test their knowledge (Lindsay et al, 1990). Furthermore, much of the research on attorneys' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony is out of date and does not take into account what researchers have learned about eyewitness testimony in the past 20-25 years (see e.g.…”

“…Furthermore, much of the research on attorneys' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony is out of date and does not take into account what researchers have learned about eyewitness testimony in the past 20-25 years (see e.g. Brigham & Wolfskeil, 1983;Lindsay et al, 1990;Rahaim & Brodsky, 1982;Yarmey & Jones, 1983).…”

An Examination of the Causes and Solutions to Eyewitness Error

“…Most of these studies are out-of-date (33–36). There are, however, two recent surveys of attorneys’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony.…”

Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert

“…One of the suggested remedies is the use of court appointed experts in addition to the parties' witnesses (e.g., Erichson, 1999;Lindsay, MacDonald, & McGarry, 1990). All judges can avail themselves of this assistance but they rarely do (Champagne, Shuman, & Whitaker, 1996;Sward, 1989).…”